[Geoffrey Childs]

Pat - I totally disagree with everything except your point that many golfers try to execute shots beyond their ability.  Even then I think most do so mainly when there is nothing on the line.  I guess our experiences with players at their home course or one they are familiar with are different.  

Do you generally hang out with morons?  

Only the ones I've met on GCA.com        [/color]

Touche!

I think your inverse ratio with respect to liking or disliking quirk is not related to intelect per se but more to a players interest in architecture, history of the game and his/her ability to accept the random nature of a ball bouncing where it may sometimes.


Geoff,

I think the "dislike" has less to do with an interest in "architecture" and more to do with scoring and not being able to play the hole without less than satisfactory or disatrous results.[/color]

Pat - see the second half of my answer ("and his/her ability to accept the random nature of a ball bouncing where it may sometimes")

[Michael Moore]

Golfer A is a "pencil-and-scorecard" golfer, who uses sprinkler heads and a yardage book to navigate the course. He uses the latest and greatest clubs and balls in an effort to hit the ball higher, straighter and longer. He enjoys the look of a green golf course. He is standing in the second fairway of the Course at Yale, totally ignorant of Charles Macdonald,  Seth Raynor, double plateau, etc. He dumps his approach into a twenty-foot deep bunker guarding the left hand side of the green.

He is playing with Golfer B, a keen student of golf course architecture.

A looks up at B, and, raising his voice to be heard from the bottom of the pit cries "This sand trap is not my cup of tea!"

A, looking up from his wireless email device from which he is busily thumbing a letter to the architectural editor of GolfWeek magazine, replies "Don't you understand? You're supposed to avoid it!"

[TEPaul]

"Isn't the ability to understand architectural features a critical component in electing how to interface with them?"

Patrick:

I like the way you've come up with this phrase 'Interfacing with the architecture'----sort of.  

In my opinion, probably the single greatest reason so many American golfers have lost their ability or their understanding of how to "interface" with the architecture of golf courses is simply because the golf ball bounces and rolls so little over here compared to other sections of the world.

If the golf ball bounced and rolled out as much as it does on so many other courses in the world it would essentially force golfers to pay attention to and interface more with golf course architecture.

Really good bounce and rollout just may be the single biggest factor to get golfers to really engage with the arhitecture of a golf course. They pretty much have to if they want to avoid mistakes and trouble.

There's a huge difference in engaging with architecture if a golfer has to say to himself; "Let's see if I hit it there where is it going to end up?", compared to; "I can hit it there and stick it."  

[Kirk Gill]

Why has the viewing public come to demand birdies and pars with a few bogies, but, NO big numbers ?

Why has there been a movement to remove elements of luck from determining outcomes ?

Mr. Mucci - do you believe that it is the viewing public that is demanding birdies and no big numbers? One of the main reasons I enjoy watching the major championships is that I actually get to see the best in the world struggle with their games (and then, sometimes, the way they overcome). I think that the desire to eliminate "luck" comes from golfers themselves, and as has been mentioned earlier on this thread, it is competitive golfers who are particularly dismissive of quirky features. This member of the viewing public, at least, loves the entertainment value of the "lucky bounce," the rub'o'the green, etc.

[Ken Moum]

One of the main reasons I enjoy watching the major championships is that I actually get to see the best in the world struggle with their games (and then, sometimes, the way they overcome). I think that the desire to eliminate "luck" comes from golfers themselves, and as has been mentioned earlier on this thread, it is competitive golfers who are particularly dismissive of quirky features.

I'm with you...

The best ratings of the golfing year are in those events where players are tested under the hottest fires.

Maybe it's partly because those are also "majors," but I for one cannot bear to watch the best players in the world hitting wedges to almost every par four and mid irons to every par five.

The U.S. Open and Open Championship are endlessly interesting to me because there's a sense of impending doom about the course setup.

The Masters has it as well, thanks to fast greens and the fact that it has seven tough par fours on the back nine.

The PGA Championship sometimes delivers, sometimes not... but its recent venues have been extremely good, IMHO.

K

[James_Livingston]

Is the dislike of quirk inversely proportional to the golfers intellect ?

No, I'd relate it more to the golfers imagination.

But I'm just a Melbourne ignoramus.

[Andrew Summerell]

Pat,

I agree with James. It has more to do with imagination, than intellect.

Intellect merely means you can justify your position with greater proficiency.

Not that we are inclined to do that here, of course.

[Mark_F]

It has nothing to do with imagination James/Andrew.

I fear intellect is perhaps not the right word either.

The dislike of quirk is directly related to a golfer's ideology.

[James_Livingston]

Spot on, Patrick.

I would be pretty careful, though.  When I stated the exact same thing about someone's failure to understand the quirk at my home course, I was rudely shouted down by the ignoramuses in Melbourne.

The courses with the big dunes tend to be the ones which are most loved by Americans and most photographed ... Ballybunion is the epitome of that, Cruden Bay second.

The courses with modest dunes probably offer a fuller variety of golf.  The conditions which form big dunes generally don't form the littler contours which make the short game so interesting, so unless the architect shaped it in when he built the course, it probably isn't there.

Mark, perhaps the ignoramuses of Melbourne don't share your American style appreciation of big dunes without the little contours which make the short game so interesting.

[Mark_F]

James,

Perhaps you had better confine your comments about courses in other countries to those you have actually seen?

Personally, I would have thought that Cruden Bay had at least a modicum of short game interest.

And I fail to see how I can share an appreciation of anything American since I am such a rapid, rampant anti-American.

And given that Tom has just stated in the above quote that "courses with modest dunes probably offer a fuller variety of golf", that must surely mean Barnbougle doesn't offer that much variety, and Woodlands none at all.

But then I guess if you choose a six iron for every greenside recovery shot, nothing is ever going to be interesting.

[James_Livingston]

James,

Perhaps you had better confine your comments about courses in other countries to those you have actually seen?

Personally, I would have thought that Cruden Bay had at least a modicum of short game interest.

And I fail to see how I can share an appreciation of anything American since I am such a rapid, rampant anti-American.

And given that Tom has just stated in the above quote that "courses with modest dunes probably offer a fuller variety of golf", that must surely mean Barnbougle doesn't offer that much variety, and Woodlands none at all.

But then I guess if you choose a six iron for every greenside recovery shot, nothing is ever going to be interesting.

Mark, I'm not sure if you have failed to understand my comments or if you are deliberately misrepresenting me.  St Andrews Beach IS a good example of a course with big dunes and not much in the way of little contours.  Thus, Tom Doak's comment about big dune courses represented perfectly my major misgiving about St Andrews Beach, that for the most part it lacks the movement necessary around the greens to make the short game interesting.  I would be surprised if even you would argue many of the greens have been shaped to the extent necessary to provide enough interest to make up for the lack of little contours.  So whilst the expanse of short grass theoretically allows a wide range of options to get to the hole, most golfers will naturally traverse it with the same shot, over and over.  Most will automatically choose the putter, another I know plays most of his shots around the greens there with a choked down 9 iron, and of course I preferred to run it with a six iron.  The weakness is that it allows me to choose the 6 iron, my strength, to get to the hole with relentless monotony, rather than forcing me to consider and agonise over other shots.  

I'm not sure what the point of your Barnbougle and Woodlands comment is - they both have significantly more shaped greens than St Andrews Beach and consequently offer more short game interest.

And I didn't make any comment on Cruden Bay.

[Paul Stephenson]

If I knew that I was not going to ever "miss" a shot, then I think you would be correct in stating that players could ignore architecture.  They don't need to pay attention since everything is fairway, green, putt.

However, the truth is that I rarely hit a "pure" shot (I'm a 1 hdcp.).  In my mind, it's where you miss your shots that count, and using the architecture to your advantage will only help you score better.  Use the mounds, avoid the bunkers.

Most golfers would score better if they assumed they would "miss" most of their shots and had a basic understanding of how golf architecture works.

A better understanding of architecture is why I'm here...and the conversation  

[Patrick_Mucci]

It has nothing to do with imagination James/Andrew.

I fear intellect is perhaps not the right word either.

The dislike of quirk is directly related to a golfer's ideology.

Mark,

I'd agree.

Imagination is unreal, something conjured up.
Architecture is a clear physical presentation, a signal targeted for the golfer's eye.

Quirk, is a unique aspect of architecture.

The ability to detect the workings of "quirk" would seem to be an intellectual exercise.

[Mark_F]

St Andrews Beach IS a good example of a course with big dunes and not much in the way of little contours.  

Misgiving about St Andrews Beach, that for the most part it lacks the movement necessary around the greens to make the short game interesting.  

Possibly two of the most ludicrous statements I have ever read.

I fear Patrick and I may both be right - quirk is a matter of both intelligence and ideology.

[James_Livingston]

Possibly two of the most ludicrous statements I have ever read.

Mark, thanks for yet another intelligent and well considered response.  You have taken the MacKenzie "affection for the mudheap" concept to a level rarely seen.

[Mark_F]

James,

I could quite easily post an intelligent and well considered response, but I fear that would be wasted on you.

As for the MacKenzie affection for the mudheap concept, that is easily the most ludicrous thing you have ever said, which is really saying something.

If you had the slightest knowledge of anything, you would realise that there are numerous aspects of the Gunnamatta course I don't find appealing, but then you wouldn't want to let the facts get in the way of a good line, would you?

Which is pretty much your bog standard ISG response, isn't it?

Emphasis on the bog, of course.

[James_Livingston]

James,

I could quite easily post an intelligent and well considered response, but I fear that would be wasted on you.

As for the MacKenzie affection for the mudheap concept, that is easily the most ludicrous thing you have ever said, which is really saying something.

If you had the slightest knowledge of anything, you would realise that there are numerous aspects of the Gunnamatta course I don't find appealing, but then you wouldn't want to let the facts get in the way of a good line, would you?

Which is pretty much your bog standard ISG response, isn't it?

Emphasis on the bog, of course.

Ahh Mark, you remind me of Baron Von Ruthless.  I am just so feeeeble.

Not sure what the ISG comment is about, but I can assure you that I wasn't the one that said that only losers do Arts degrees.

[Rich Goodale]

These exchanges are intriguing.  I can't help but imagining David Attenborough or Steve Irwin (RIP ) hiding behind a gum tree and saying.......

"Now you can see the young Aussies, slanging/sledging each other in an historic rite of manhood, preparing for the days when the Poms or the Yanks (or any non-Australians, for that matter) come to town.  The lessons they learn in these seemingly meaningless rituals will serve them well in their endlesss quest to learn about and/or earn self-esteem."

Luv youse guys!

Rich

[James_Livingston]

Rich, ISG refers to the iseekgolf forums.  It is where most of the Australian guys now post because Mark isn't there much.  If you look in the courses section Tony Titheridge has also done some excellent course reviews, particularly of lesser known courses and can also be relied upon to provide the definitive answer to any golf in Australia related question (actually, he is an expert on pretty much everything )

I don't know what Mark is talking about half the time either, but that is because I'm a stupid ignoramus from Melbourne.

[Kirk Gill]

How many of those courses generally acknowledged as "great" could also be described as quirky? Is Pine Valley quirky? What about Shinnecock Hills?

If few courses considered to be great are also quirky, then could the dislike of quirk be inversely proportional to..........appreciation of greatness? Is quirk on a course de facto evidence that the course cannot be considered to be great by the cognoscenti ?

[Mark_F]

Rich, ISG refers to the iseekgolf forums.  It is where most of the Australian guys now post because Mark isn't there much.  

I am not there at all.

The Australian guys post there because it is much more fun for certain poor souls to be a rude, misogynistic, homophobic, racist, boorish, arrogant, ignorant, pompous wanker under the cloak of anonymity.

I have no idea what you are talking about with the the Arts courses are losers comment, but the fact that that opinion is held by the (or several of) ISG cabal only reinforces my above character description, although there is another word I should add - misguided - that seems perfectly apt.

Tom Doak and James Bennett provided a perfectly succinct response to your concerns in another thread which you have chosen to ignore.

And I guess a professional golf course architect wouldn't know anything, would he?

[James_Livingston]

Tom Doak and James Bennett provided a perfectly succinct response to your concerns in another thread which you have chosen to ignore.

And I guess a professional golf course architect wouldn't know anything, would he?

Mark, feel free to post the link/relevant quotes as I don't recall seeing anything that addressed my 'concerns' terribly much.

And if there is one thing I have discovered reading these type of forums, it is that professional golf course architects don't know anything.

I am not there at all.

The Australian guys post there because it is much more fun for certain poor souls to be a rude, misogynistic, homophobic, racist, boorish, arrogant, ignorant, pompous wanker under the cloak of anonymity.

And you wouldn't fit in there why?

[Jason Blasberg]

The most concise and accurate answer to this question is:

YES

[Patrick_Mucci]

How many of those courses generally acknowledged as "great" could also be described as quirky? Is Pine Valley quirky? What about Shinnecock Hills?

Kirk,

I don't think that I'd call PV quirky, although it contains quirk.

Shinnecock ?  Maybe # 10, it's pretty unusual, but, I don't think I'd call the golf course quirky as a whole.[/color]

If few courses considered to be great are also quirky, then could the dislike of quirk be inversely proportional to..........appreciation of greatness?

Is quirk on a course de facto evidence that the course cannot be considered to be great by the cognoscenti ?


NGLA would seem to dispatch that theory.
[/color]

[Kirk Gill]

I haven't played NGLA, and so if you say it is a great course with quirk, I believe you.

How many others?  Truly, I'm curious.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()